Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    No it isn't.
    Yes it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    That's not an answer, it's a deflection.
    No it isn't.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You're basically saying, "I will accept those things that I am predisposed to accept, and will reject those things that I am predisposed to reject
    In point of fact I am actually stating that real places existed and many continue to exist, e.g. Jerusalem, Caesarea Maritima, Bethlehem. And real historical figures existed e.g. Augustus, Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Quirinius. However, the internal narratives of the four gospels and many of the other figures are questionable. Fiction often uses real places and real people, and indeed real events [War and Peace or Les Miserables for example] but it does not follow that Pyotr Bezukhov or Jean Valjean were real people

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Should read: You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic.
    You floated this nonsense before. You don't think there were those around who were fluid in both languages? Translators? It is not possible for anyone in Pilate's circle (like his wife) who were sympathetic to the early Christians who could have shared the exchange?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And at post #8 I gave my answer "Insofar as the texts mention real places and real historical figures, in that respect the texts may be considered correct. Everything else is questionable."
    That's not an answer, it's a deflection. You're basically saying, "I will accept those things that I am predisposed to accept, and will reject those things that I am predisposed to reject." It has nothing to do with any supposed "contradictions", you're just looking for excuses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    A nice try but now tell us all how many young men/angels were present and why each supposed eye-witness account of this encounter is different?[/SIZE]
    • Matthew tells us Mary Magdalen and the “other Mary” went to the tomb, an earthquake occurs, then one angel descends from heaven, this entity rolls away the stone, and then proceeds to sit on it.
    • Mark tells us that three women {Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, and Salome] look up to see the stone has been moved, enter the tomb to find one young man in it
    • Luke just writes about “the women” who also find that the stone had been moved. They also go inside the tomb to find it empty and suddenly TWO young men appear beside them.
    • John has Mary Magdalene finding the stone has been moved running back to tell Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb. The other disciple gets there first. Simon Peter comes into the tomb to see the wrappings rolled up in a corner of the tomb [a place by itself]. The two disciples then go home. Meanwhile Mary stays outside the tomb weeping when she sees two angels sitting where the body should have been

    How many young men/angels were there? And why do the Synoptics not mention Simon Peter and the other disciple's presence?

    Kindly also explain why these four [alleged] eye-witnesses could not agree on when the interrogation by Pilate took place. You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic

    You can also explain the [at least] ten year discrepancy between Matthew’s birth narrative and that of Luke.
    Should read: You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So you were being less than honest in your claim about not remembering such a discussion?
    My OP in this thread addressed the remarks you made on another thread. Namely, at post #147 here: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...11#post1264787

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Her bluff has already been called. I conceded for the sake of argument every supposed "contradiction" she cares to name and asked if she would be willing to accept what's left as truthful and accurate. Notice that she has yet to respond directly to this, meaning that her "But- but the contradictions!" routine is nothing but an empty rationalization.
    You appear unable to read for comprehension. At post #8 I replied to your comment in post #7 referencing the comment that you had made in post #5 as I had not addressed it in my reply at post #6.

    You wrote in post #7:

    "I also notice you didn't care to address this challenge: For sake of argument, let's generously concede this point and toss out every supposed "contradiction". Are you willing, then, to accept what remains as truthful and accurate?"

    And at post #8 I gave my answer "Insofar as the texts mention real places and real historical figures, in that respect the texts may be considered correct. Everything else is questionable."

    All this bluster and affectation of indignation is clear indication you cannot explain these specific contradictions that I cited from your texts. Hence your feeble attempts to belittle your correspondent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    "The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham."
    What is 300 individuals when compared to the number of evangelicals across the entire USA [or indeed the world]?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    That is not an academic source.
    "The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That is not an academic source. It is a theological statement that proffers the opinions of a small collection of evangelicals, and presumably, was agreed upon by a vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    While some "contradictions" are more significant than others, many are indeed nothing burgers and the result of what typically happens when different people describe the same event.[/quote

    The fact of the matter is, that it often depends on the audience and what the person providing the account wants to emphasize. Just like what we see today.

    For instance, the following describe the exact same thing. If someone were to ask "Bob" if they ever went over to see "Steve's" new house and got one of the following

    Yeah. I went over there Saturday and stayed over there for about three hours


    Last weekend, after work, I went past the park and picked up Carol and went over there. He was just walking back up his driveway after getting his mail


    I went this past weekend. You wouldn't believe the traffic. It was like everybody and their brother was taking their dog to the park. And then there was a fend-bender by the square and it took us three lights to get through but we finally made it


    All three describe the exact same thing. All provide different details.

    Only the second one mentions Carol going as well, but the third indicates it with the use of "us" and "we." The first was a barebones recount and left that detail out but does not contradict that more than one person went to Steve's.

    A similar thing can be seen about exactly how many women went to the tomb after Jesus' crucifixion.

    Matthew, gives a very brief account seemingly eager to get on to the Great Commission. Both he and Mark mention Mary Magdalene as going. They also mention a second Mary, who is described differently, likely because Matthew's audience may have been familiar with who she was so "the other Mary" sufficed. Mark, OTOH, might have wanted to be sure they understood which Mary so he adds "the mother of James" into the descriptor and also notes that Salome was there as well. Nobody else mentions Salome, but that could be due to Mark's audience knowing Salome or simply that she doesn't play much of a role later on so no need to mention her and therefore explain who she is. Keep in mind both paper and ink were expensive and not to be wasted. And while John only mentions Mary Magdalene, it is clear she was not alone because she uses the term "we" when describing events. So for whatever reason John wanted the spotlight on her.


    A nice try but now tell us all how many young men/angels were present and why each supposed eye-witness account of this encounter is different?
    • Matthew tells us Mary Magdalen and the “other Mary” went to the tomb, an earthquake occurs, then one angel descends from heaven, this entity rolls away the stone, and then proceeds to sit on it.
    • Mark tells us that three women {Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, and Salome] look up to see the stone has been moved, enter the tomb to find one young man in it
    • Luke just writes about “the women” who also find that the stone had been moved. They also go inside the tomb to find it empty and suddenly TWO young men appear beside them.
    • John has Mary Magdalene finding the stone has been moved running back to tell Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb. The other disciple gets there first. Simon Peter comes into the tomb to see the wrappings rolled up in a corner of the tomb [a place by itself]. The two disciples then go home. Meanwhile Mary stays outside the tomb weeping when she sees two angels sitting where the body should have been

    How many young men/angels were there? And why do the Synoptics not mention Simon Peter and the other disciple's presence?

    Kindly also explain why these four [alleged] eye-witnesses could not agree on when the interrogation by Pilate took place. You can also explain how they managed to the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic

    You can also explain the [at least] ten year discrepancy between Matthew’s birth narrative and that of Luke.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    The examples I gave are not trivial. Those texts contradict one another in narrative details and [for the birth narratives] in chronology.

    If you cannot provide sources, admit it.

    Which is nothing but a somewhat feeble excuse vainly attempting to explain away these contradictions within the texts. It is also flagrantly disregards much of what we know of extant ancient literary sources and how those were compiled.

    I would also add that regardless of how much you may indeed "note" these things, if you cannot provide some serious academic evidence in support of your your comments, then they really count for very little
    .
    Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so
    The examples I gave are not trivial. Those texts contradict one another in narrative details and [for the birth narratives] in chronology.

    If you cannot provide sources, admit it.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today
    Which is nothing but a somewhat feeble excuse vainly attempting to explain away these contradictions within the texts. It is also flagrantly disregards much of what we know of extant ancient literary sources and how those were compiled.

    I would also add that regardless of how much you may indeed "note" these things, if you cannot provide some serious academic evidence in support of your your comments, then they really count for very little
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I am not offering excuses. Your mistakes are dealt with in my OP.
    So you were being less than honest in your claim about not remembering such a discussion?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    While some "contradictions" are more significant than others, many are indeed nothing burgers...
    Her bluff has already been called. I conceded for the sake of argument every supposed "contradiction" she cares to name and asked if she would be willing to accept what's left as truthful and accurate. Notice that she has yet to respond directly to this, meaning that her "But- but the contradictions!" routine is nothing but an empty rationalization.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 11-27-2021, 06:29 AM
39 responses
257 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
68 responses
354 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
356 responses
1,875 views
0 likes
Last Post DesertBerean  
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
460 responses
2,864 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X